I refreshed the query in 1) but I continue to see these three Introduced species.
Why is this? Is the Introduced=false in the url query pointing to some other field that is not the Observation field: Introduced?
Yes, that is the problem. The URL parameter is querying the establishment means for each observation taxon in the place checklist where it occurs, not the Observation field: Introduced. Place checklists and observation fields are not connected to each other. See this forum topic for more information about place checklists.
Anyone can change establishment means settings in place checklists, so a word of caution:
Changing a species to Introduced for a large place will make it Introduced for ALL included smaller places. So for example, don’t change a species to Introduced in the Mexico checklist unless it is Introduced everywhere in Mexico. If it is Native to even one small part of Mexico, then it should be set to Native in the Mexico checklist also, and Introduced status should be handled in lower-level place checklists instead, like for states where all occurrences are Introduced.
Any ideas why this may be? You mention Introduced should be handled at state level for example, but is that a recommendation or an actual website restriction? The thread you linked doesn’t mention this I think.
Sometimes it takes a few hours for changes like that to propagate through the database. Try the query again in a few hours and see if they are still appearing.
It is not a website restriction. I only mentioned it for cases where a species is native in some parts of a single nation, and introduced in other parts of that same nation. In that case, only the states, provinces, or other interior places where all occurrences are Introduced should be marked as Introduced. The nation as a whole should be left as Native.
The reason for that is that by setting Introduced on the nation checklist, the system automatically shows all smaller places inside that nation as Introduced also. That would not be correct if the species is native in some of those smaller places.
In your cases, it looks like it was appropriate to set these species as Introduced for all of Mexico.
Thank you. They continue to appear in the query but now with the label “IN” in the top corner of the photo of the species. So what’s happening here? Is the Introduced=false in the url pointing to another field in the database?
In order for some observation attributes to be searchable (especially attributes inhered from associations like with taxa, places, projects, etc), observations need to be re-indexed in our search database. This re-indexing usually happens in a queue, so when the indexing happens is variable depending on how filled the queue is.
In this case to determine which observations were affecting the results, I clicked your link to the observation search species count page, then clicked the “X observation” link under that taxon. That narrows down your search to filter by that taxon. Then for each I used a trick to manually re-index them which is to fave then un-fave the observation, which triggers an immediate re-index of that observation. I did that for 4 observations and I think that resolved the problem. Keep in mind that search results for a given query can be cached for 5 minutes, so in order to be sure the re-indexing had an effect, you’ll need to add a search parameter (I usually add something I know is true for the observation like the place, date range, or user ID)
I’m not 100% sure if the re-indexing would have happened eventually - it is possible there’s a bug with check lists that the re-indexing jobs aren’t created properly. If this happens again and doesn’t clear up after about a day, then there’s likely an indexing oversight which would be good to identify.
Thank you @jdmore , I see that these three species are no more in the query.
However, now the genus Agapornis appears in the results of the query. Remember that Agapornis personatus was one of the species that appeared before but that you made possible its exclusion by the fav/unfav trick.
Clicking in the two observations for Mexico for this genus, one has been id as two different species of Agapornis and that’s why the id is at the genus level The other observation has been id only at the genus level.
Then I tried to change the Establishment means status for the genus Agapornis for Mexico using the method of the checklist, however when searching in the checklist for that genus, I can only edit the (three) species checklisted and not the genus. Also, if I click in the checklist in “Edit taxa”, I can edit Establishment means status for higher taxonomic levels (down to Class) and the species level, but not Family or Genus.
I don’t know that the Introduced query has any affect when it is set on taxa at ranks higher than species. One of the staff might need to answer that question.
Sorry, any staff member (@pleary ?) that may shed some light on why the Agapornis genus is still appearing in the url query with introduced=false and view=species
To show only species you have to add rank=species to the URL (or select high rank=species and low rank=species in the filters).
On the checklist page, click “Add to List” in the top right corner. Type the genus name, then “Find”, then select the taxon and click “Add”. Then next to the genus you added click “Edit” and select the establishment means on the listed taxon page: https://www.inaturalist.org/listed_taxa/42345999
In my previous response I described the process I use to find the observations behind the results:
Once you filter by taxon, you’ll see the observations that match the query. If any seem out of place, you can use the fave/unfave trick to see if there’s an indexing problem.
Now that the genus Agapornis has been marked as introduced in Mexico, and the three observations reindexed, it’s no longer appearing in the search link above.